Day 219 - 8/7/09 - Movie #215
BEFORE: Might as well...
THE PLOT: After hunting down and killing hundreds of violent criminals, Frank Castle, aka The Punisher, faces his most deadly foe yet: Jigsaw.
AFTER: It's the third try at making a good Punisher movie (and the third actor to play Frank Castle) and finally they've written in a bunch of the other characters from the comic books, like Det. Martin Soap, Maginty (a black Irish thug) and Wayne Knight as Microchip - genius casting there! I suppose the 2nd movie did have one character from the comics - The Russian, a giant fighter incapable of feeling pain. But this movie introduces Jigsaw, the Punisher's main comic-book nemesis. I didn't like Jigsaw's origin here, though - how his face got all cut up was a little too similar to what happened to Jack Nicholson's Joker in the 1st Batman movie.
I guess if the Jigsaw's like the Joker, then maybe the Punisher is a lot like Batman, except he doesn't wear a mask, and Batman doesn't use guns or kill. Both use the highest-tech weaponry, both are in top physical form, and both seem to have an endless supply of funds (though Batman inherited his, Punisher takes his funding from the criminals he wipes out).
I don't know where they filmed this movie, but it sure wasn't in New York - the subway trains look all wrong, and there's a stop on "Fifth Avenue/13th St." on the A, C, E and L lines. Huh? Shouldn't that be 8th Avenue and 14th St.? (aha, Wikipedia says this was shot in Montreal...) Plus, no one seems to be able to do a very good NY accent... But all in all, I thought this was very faithful to the source material - maybe a bit too violent for my tastes, but the kids today don't mind a little splatter...
Let's hope that if another Punisher film is made, they use Barracuda as the villain...
RATING: 7 out of 10 grenades
Friday, August 7, 2009
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Punisher (1989)
Day 218 - 8/6/09 - Movie #214
BEFORE: OK, back to comic-book vigilantes. I've seen the second Punisher movie, the one with Thomas Jane and John Travolta, but not this one, starring Dolph Lundgren (aka Ivan Drago from "Rocky IV"). True story - in 2002, when we were flying down to Florida for our honeymoon cruise, I found myself sitting next to actor Ed Burns on the plane. I noticed he was reading a script for a Punisher movie - at the time, comic-book movies were starting to really catch on, and I figured he was looking to get involved in one. Rather than talk to him directly, after my wife fell asleep I pulled out a couple comic books and started reading, which led to Ed Burns asking me questions about comics - he wanted to know which heroes I liked, which books were popular, and so forth. He'd been a reader of Marvel Comics when he was a kid, but didn't know too much outside of Spider-Man and the Silver Surfer. I referenced the Punisher script he was reading, and mentioned that a Punisher movie had been made before in 1989, which he was surprised to learn. So I'm guessing that when he got off the plane, he looked up this movie, and that was probably the end of his interest in the franchise.
THE PLOT: Frank Castle is an ex-cop who lives in the sewers and acts as judge, jury, and executioner to the city's criminals in retaliation for the unpunished murders of his wife and kids. Frank's ex-partner Jake finally catches up with the vigilante as he tries to stop the Japanese mob, which is trying to take over the city's mafia operation.
AFTER: Yeah, this movie was definitely made on the cheap in the late 80's - it makes "Lethal Weapon" look like "Gone With the Wind"... Lundgren is a man of few words, but that sort of fits with the Punisher's character. The movie is short on plot and dialogue, but not on explosions, and in terms of action, it does manage to capture the spirit of the comic-book, which is usually just simple shoot-em-ups. (OK, sometimes knives are used...)
Louis Gossett Jr. plays Frank's old partner, Jake Berkowitz (funny, he doesn't look Jewish...), and character actor Jeroen Krabbe plays the head mobster. Production values are very poor, the editing is sloppy, the plot is simplistic, and it seems like a vast majority of the dialogue was added later in post, probably in an attempt to make some sense out of the footage that was shot.
The only positive thing is that it does portray Castle's determination, and in that sense is true to the character. If Punisher needs a bus, he steals a bus. If he needs to blow up a building, it gets blowed up. It's pretty simple stuff, but so is the source material.
RATING: 3 out of 10 samurai swords
BEFORE: OK, back to comic-book vigilantes. I've seen the second Punisher movie, the one with Thomas Jane and John Travolta, but not this one, starring Dolph Lundgren (aka Ivan Drago from "Rocky IV"). True story - in 2002, when we were flying down to Florida for our honeymoon cruise, I found myself sitting next to actor Ed Burns on the plane. I noticed he was reading a script for a Punisher movie - at the time, comic-book movies were starting to really catch on, and I figured he was looking to get involved in one. Rather than talk to him directly, after my wife fell asleep I pulled out a couple comic books and started reading, which led to Ed Burns asking me questions about comics - he wanted to know which heroes I liked, which books were popular, and so forth. He'd been a reader of Marvel Comics when he was a kid, but didn't know too much outside of Spider-Man and the Silver Surfer. I referenced the Punisher script he was reading, and mentioned that a Punisher movie had been made before in 1989, which he was surprised to learn. So I'm guessing that when he got off the plane, he looked up this movie, and that was probably the end of his interest in the franchise.
THE PLOT: Frank Castle is an ex-cop who lives in the sewers and acts as judge, jury, and executioner to the city's criminals in retaliation for the unpunished murders of his wife and kids. Frank's ex-partner Jake finally catches up with the vigilante as he tries to stop the Japanese mob, which is trying to take over the city's mafia operation.
AFTER: Yeah, this movie was definitely made on the cheap in the late 80's - it makes "Lethal Weapon" look like "Gone With the Wind"... Lundgren is a man of few words, but that sort of fits with the Punisher's character. The movie is short on plot and dialogue, but not on explosions, and in terms of action, it does manage to capture the spirit of the comic-book, which is usually just simple shoot-em-ups. (OK, sometimes knives are used...)
Louis Gossett Jr. plays Frank's old partner, Jake Berkowitz (funny, he doesn't look Jewish...), and character actor Jeroen Krabbe plays the head mobster. Production values are very poor, the editing is sloppy, the plot is simplistic, and it seems like a vast majority of the dialogue was added later in post, probably in an attempt to make some sense out of the footage that was shot.
The only positive thing is that it does portray Castle's determination, and in that sense is true to the character. If Punisher needs a bus, he steals a bus. If he needs to blow up a building, it gets blowed up. It's pretty simple stuff, but so is the source material.
RATING: 3 out of 10 samurai swords
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Professional
Day 217 - 8/5/09 - Movie #213
BEFORE: No, it's not based on a comic book. But this seems to have turned into "Terrorist and Vigilantes" week - and I felt this movie would make sense here, with back-to-back Natalie Portman films.
THE PLOT: Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade.
AFTER: Ms. Portman seems to have a knack for hanging out with a bad crowd - if it's not a Dark Lord of the Sith, she's associating with terrorists and hit men. This was her first major film role, and she plays the savviest pre-teen this side of Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver". Jean Reno plays Leon, the expert hitman, and I wish they'd shown more of his "jobs", because they're the highlight of the film.
It's a strange pairing - Matilda teaches Leon to read and connect emotionally, and he teaches her how to clean and fire guns. Gary Oldman steals the film though (as he usually does...) by playing a corrupt DEA agent who pops pills before taking someone out.
RATING: 6 out of 10 milk cartons
BEFORE: No, it's not based on a comic book. But this seems to have turned into "Terrorist and Vigilantes" week - and I felt this movie would make sense here, with back-to-back Natalie Portman films.
THE PLOT: Professional assassin Leon reluctantly takes care of 12-year-old Mathilda, a neighbor whose parents are killed, and teaches her his trade.
AFTER: Ms. Portman seems to have a knack for hanging out with a bad crowd - if it's not a Dark Lord of the Sith, she's associating with terrorists and hit men. This was her first major film role, and she plays the savviest pre-teen this side of Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver". Jean Reno plays Leon, the expert hitman, and I wish they'd shown more of his "jobs", because they're the highlight of the film.
It's a strange pairing - Matilda teaches Leon to read and connect emotionally, and he teaches her how to clean and fire guns. Gary Oldman steals the film though (as he usually does...) by playing a corrupt DEA agent who pops pills before taking someone out.
RATING: 6 out of 10 milk cartons
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
V For Vendetta
Day 216 - 8/4/09 - Movie #212
BEFORE: From assassins to terrorists, and another movie based on a comic book, written by Alan Moore for DC/Vertigo. As an extra coincidental bonus, this movie came up in a trivia round last night, a video round that featured clips of explosions from various films...
THE PLOT: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.
AFTER: This is a tale set in a dystopian-future England - one that has suffered war, plague and terrorism, and whose government has clamped down on citizens' rights in order to protect the populace. A rogue terrorist named V (who might be the subject of government experiments to combat or even create a plague) revives the spirit of Guy Fawkes, blows up government buildings and kidnaps a British-accented Natalie Portman. (wouldn't you?) I found it hard to fully understand his motivations (maybe that's a hard thing to depict) since his theories are full of conspiracies.
There's a part of the film in the middle that I'm just not buying - it suggests that you can make someone stronger by breaking their spirit, that you've got to be cruel to be kind - and vice versa, I suppose. That's no real justification for psychological torture - if V tortures someone, even to prove a point, how is he any better than the secret police in the system that he's fighting? I can see similarities to the other works of Alan Moore, particularly the way the "Watchmen" comic is structured (I'll be watching that film later this week...) but just because someone says that a bunch of events are connected, it doesn't mean that they actually are part of a conspiracy.
There are some important points here about gay rights, human rights, and oppressive governments, but unfortunately they're wrapped up in a terrorist manifesto, which is hard for some people to take. The film had the bad fortune to be scheduled for release in the U.K. shortly after some real-life London bombings in 2005...
RATING: 7 out of 10 angry mobs (it's really a 6, but I bumped it up after some thrilling action sequences late in the film)
BEFORE: From assassins to terrorists, and another movie based on a comic book, written by Alan Moore for DC/Vertigo. As an extra coincidental bonus, this movie came up in a trivia round last night, a video round that featured clips of explosions from various films...
THE PLOT: A shadowy freedom fighter known only as "V" uses terrorist tactics to fight against his totalitarian society. Upon rescuing a girl from the secret police, he also finds his best chance at having an ally.
AFTER: This is a tale set in a dystopian-future England - one that has suffered war, plague and terrorism, and whose government has clamped down on citizens' rights in order to protect the populace. A rogue terrorist named V (who might be the subject of government experiments to combat or even create a plague) revives the spirit of Guy Fawkes, blows up government buildings and kidnaps a British-accented Natalie Portman. (wouldn't you?) I found it hard to fully understand his motivations (maybe that's a hard thing to depict) since his theories are full of conspiracies.
There's a part of the film in the middle that I'm just not buying - it suggests that you can make someone stronger by breaking their spirit, that you've got to be cruel to be kind - and vice versa, I suppose. That's no real justification for psychological torture - if V tortures someone, even to prove a point, how is he any better than the secret police in the system that he's fighting? I can see similarities to the other works of Alan Moore, particularly the way the "Watchmen" comic is structured (I'll be watching that film later this week...) but just because someone says that a bunch of events are connected, it doesn't mean that they actually are part of a conspiracy.
There are some important points here about gay rights, human rights, and oppressive governments, but unfortunately they're wrapped up in a terrorist manifesto, which is hard for some people to take. The film had the bad fortune to be scheduled for release in the U.K. shortly after some real-life London bombings in 2005...
RATING: 7 out of 10 angry mobs (it's really a 6, but I bumped it up after some thrilling action sequences late in the film)
Monday, August 3, 2009
Wanted
Day 215 - 8/3/09 - Movie #211
BEFORE: Back-to-back Angelina Jolie films, making the transition to comic-book movies. Yes, this counts, it was based on a comic book. I assure you, there is a method (sort of) to my madness. Unfortunately, the volume on my recording is really low - thanks to Time Warner Cable's new Mystro DVR software, I think. (Did I mention that I hate Mystro?) I used to be able to control the DVR's audio output volume - now, not so much. Anyway, I'll try to judge the movie and not my low-volume recording of same.
THE PLOT: A frustrated office worker learns that he is the son of a professional assassin, and that he shares his father's superhuman killing abilities.
AFTER: Well, that was a slice of awesome! I may not be an expert on action movies, but I know what I like! Damn, this film STARTS with over-the-top action scenes, then says, "Well, how high can we go from here?"
I was right to use this film to transition out of fantasy movies - make no mistake, this is a fantasy film, as realistic as, well, a comic book. There's an attempt to tap the fantasy node on the male brain, by showing an office drone who gets visited by Angelina Jolie, and recruited into a secret society of assassins, who train him (in the style of "Karate Kid") to unlock his ability to slow down time (in the style of "The Matrix") to pull off some impossible, jaw-dropping stunts. Plus, who among us hasn't dreamed of telling off their boss, or smacking their most annoying co-worker in the face with a keyboard?
Since in real life hitmen can't "curve" the path of a bullet, or shoot the wings off of flies, the exaggerated action here is the equivalent of pornography, when compared to real-world sex. Is this a new genre - action porn? There are so many OMG! or WTF? moments in the stunts and special FX, like bullets colliding in mid-air, or when Jolie scoops up our hero in a spinning-out car, that this should give the Mythbusters guys enough material for a whole season's worth of shows - I know they covered a couple of these things already, but I bet they've just scratched the surface.
RATING: 9 out of 10 jars of peanut butter (let the flaming and second-guessing begin...)
BEFORE: Back-to-back Angelina Jolie films, making the transition to comic-book movies. Yes, this counts, it was based on a comic book. I assure you, there is a method (sort of) to my madness. Unfortunately, the volume on my recording is really low - thanks to Time Warner Cable's new Mystro DVR software, I think. (Did I mention that I hate Mystro?) I used to be able to control the DVR's audio output volume - now, not so much. Anyway, I'll try to judge the movie and not my low-volume recording of same.
THE PLOT: A frustrated office worker learns that he is the son of a professional assassin, and that he shares his father's superhuman killing abilities.
AFTER: Well, that was a slice of awesome! I may not be an expert on action movies, but I know what I like! Damn, this film STARTS with over-the-top action scenes, then says, "Well, how high can we go from here?"
I was right to use this film to transition out of fantasy movies - make no mistake, this is a fantasy film, as realistic as, well, a comic book. There's an attempt to tap the fantasy node on the male brain, by showing an office drone who gets visited by Angelina Jolie, and recruited into a secret society of assassins, who train him (in the style of "Karate Kid") to unlock his ability to slow down time (in the style of "The Matrix") to pull off some impossible, jaw-dropping stunts. Plus, who among us hasn't dreamed of telling off their boss, or smacking their most annoying co-worker in the face with a keyboard?
Since in real life hitmen can't "curve" the path of a bullet, or shoot the wings off of flies, the exaggerated action here is the equivalent of pornography, when compared to real-world sex. Is this a new genre - action porn? There are so many OMG! or WTF? moments in the stunts and special FX, like bullets colliding in mid-air, or when Jolie scoops up our hero in a spinning-out car, that this should give the Mythbusters guys enough material for a whole season's worth of shows - I know they covered a couple of these things already, but I bet they've just scratched the surface.
RATING: 9 out of 10 jars of peanut butter (let the flaming and second-guessing begin...)
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Beowulf (2007)
Day 214 - 8/2/09 - Movie #210
BEFORE: This is the all-CGI version from a year or two ago. There are classic storylines, then there are classic STORIES. In fact, this is based on one of the first stories ever, it's only like 1,000 years old! For once I don't have to worry about giving away plot details as the plot is just - man fights monster, right?
THE PLOT: The warrior Beowulf must fight and defeat the monster Grendel who is terrorizing towns, and later, Grendel's mother, who begins killing out of revenge.
AFTER: Not only one of the first stories, one of the first examples of three-act plot structure, based on Beowulf's three battles - vs. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and then later in life, a dragon. But there's a twist here which is sort of soap-opera like, and adds a whole new dimension to the fight with the dragon.
I noticed that Neil Gaiman co-wrote the screenplay - I'm very curious now to find out about the deviations from the original Beowulf storyline, and whose idea they were. Of course, classic stories change over time, and reflect the times in which they're told - one example of this is having Grendel's mother appear not as a monstrous beast, but as a hot, naked, Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold. Well, do you think that when the devil appears to you, it's going to look like a horrible dragon, or a beast with horns and a spiked tail? No, that's not how the devil works - the devil will appear to you in a very seductive form, like a hot, naked Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold!
In the first part of the story, as the kingdom is being attacked by Grendel, we come to suspect that there might be more to King Hrothgar's story than he's let on - what's his connection to Grendel, and for that matter, Grendel's mother? Why is the beast attacking the kingdom, anyway? None of this matters to Beowulf, of course - he came to town to slay monsters and drink mead, and he's all out of mead...
Beowulf prefers a fair fight - Grendel doesn't have a sword, so he can't use one. Grendel doesn't wear clothing, so Beowulf strips down. This sets up a great fight sequence - you can see Beowulf holding back while he studies the way that Grendel kills his men. He's learning his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and figuring out a way to defeat him! In addition to showing monster-fighting in the buff, the movie is filled with phallic references - when he encounters the hot nakedness of Grendel's mother, she literally melts his sword. And later when fighting the dragon, Beowulf's sword is just a few inches too short - does he have something to prove, or what?
The CGI animation is slightly better than what was seen in "Shrek 3" - but the action is a non-stop thrill ride, with the best dragon-battle sequence I've seen all week...
RATING: 7 out of 10 serving-wenches
BEFORE: This is the all-CGI version from a year or two ago. There are classic storylines, then there are classic STORIES. In fact, this is based on one of the first stories ever, it's only like 1,000 years old! For once I don't have to worry about giving away plot details as the plot is just - man fights monster, right?
THE PLOT: The warrior Beowulf must fight and defeat the monster Grendel who is terrorizing towns, and later, Grendel's mother, who begins killing out of revenge.
AFTER: Not only one of the first stories, one of the first examples of three-act plot structure, based on Beowulf's three battles - vs. Grendel, Grendel's mother, and then later in life, a dragon. But there's a twist here which is sort of soap-opera like, and adds a whole new dimension to the fight with the dragon.
I noticed that Neil Gaiman co-wrote the screenplay - I'm very curious now to find out about the deviations from the original Beowulf storyline, and whose idea they were. Of course, classic stories change over time, and reflect the times in which they're told - one example of this is having Grendel's mother appear not as a monstrous beast, but as a hot, naked, Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold. Well, do you think that when the devil appears to you, it's going to look like a horrible dragon, or a beast with horns and a spiked tail? No, that's not how the devil works - the devil will appear to you in a very seductive form, like a hot, naked Angelina Jolie, covered in liquid gold!
In the first part of the story, as the kingdom is being attacked by Grendel, we come to suspect that there might be more to King Hrothgar's story than he's let on - what's his connection to Grendel, and for that matter, Grendel's mother? Why is the beast attacking the kingdom, anyway? None of this matters to Beowulf, of course - he came to town to slay monsters and drink mead, and he's all out of mead...
Beowulf prefers a fair fight - Grendel doesn't have a sword, so he can't use one. Grendel doesn't wear clothing, so Beowulf strips down. This sets up a great fight sequence - you can see Beowulf holding back while he studies the way that Grendel kills his men. He's learning his opponent's strengths and weaknesses, and figuring out a way to defeat him! In addition to showing monster-fighting in the buff, the movie is filled with phallic references - when he encounters the hot nakedness of Grendel's mother, she literally melts his sword. And later when fighting the dragon, Beowulf's sword is just a few inches too short - does he have something to prove, or what?
The CGI animation is slightly better than what was seen in "Shrek 3" - but the action is a non-stop thrill ride, with the best dragon-battle sequence I've seen all week...
RATING: 7 out of 10 serving-wenches
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Day 213 - 8/1/09 - Movie #209
BEFORE: I have news of a devastating loss - Time Warner Cable here in New York has replaced their "Passport" DVR software with something called "Mystro" - and as a result I've lost the ability to search for movies by an actor or director's name. This will make it tougher to track down those last two Hitchcock films, and my planned Clint Eastwood festival will now have to be scaled back. However, I now have access to more Movies On Demand channels, at $1.99 each (take that, $5.99 DVD store!) so I've been buying and recording like a madman, keeping my list of movies to watch hovering above 400 - thus ensuring that this project will continue, at least until the end of 2010.
The "Narnia" series of books was one of my favorites when I was a kid - I can remember when "Prince Caspian" was considered the 5th book in the series, not the 2nd - and I didn't realize at the time that it was sort of a "gateway drug" to harder fare like "The Lord of the Rings"! I watched the first movie last year, so now finally I'm following up.
THE PLOT: The Pevensie siblings return to Narnia, where they are enlisted to once again help ward off an evil king and restore the rightful heir to the land's throne, Prince Caspian.
AFTER: Since I didn't recall most of the exact details from the book (it's been a long time...) I can't rate the movie's faithfulness to the source material - but it was certainly action-packed, and just like in "Golden Compass", the best scenes were the fight scenes and the talking animals. Liam Neeson once again voices the lion Aslan, Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis co-star as dwarves, and Eddie Izzard voices a sword-fighting mouse.
Much has been written over the years about the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books, and I can sort of see that here - the kingdom of Narnia is endangered by the apparent loss of its lion/god - what sort of god remains absent and watches from afar, as people fight and struggle and suffer?
RATING: 8 out of 10 centaurs
BEFORE: I have news of a devastating loss - Time Warner Cable here in New York has replaced their "Passport" DVR software with something called "Mystro" - and as a result I've lost the ability to search for movies by an actor or director's name. This will make it tougher to track down those last two Hitchcock films, and my planned Clint Eastwood festival will now have to be scaled back. However, I now have access to more Movies On Demand channels, at $1.99 each (take that, $5.99 DVD store!) so I've been buying and recording like a madman, keeping my list of movies to watch hovering above 400 - thus ensuring that this project will continue, at least until the end of 2010.
The "Narnia" series of books was one of my favorites when I was a kid - I can remember when "Prince Caspian" was considered the 5th book in the series, not the 2nd - and I didn't realize at the time that it was sort of a "gateway drug" to harder fare like "The Lord of the Rings"! I watched the first movie last year, so now finally I'm following up.
THE PLOT: The Pevensie siblings return to Narnia, where they are enlisted to once again help ward off an evil king and restore the rightful heir to the land's throne, Prince Caspian.
AFTER: Since I didn't recall most of the exact details from the book (it's been a long time...) I can't rate the movie's faithfulness to the source material - but it was certainly action-packed, and just like in "Golden Compass", the best scenes were the fight scenes and the talking animals. Liam Neeson once again voices the lion Aslan, Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis co-star as dwarves, and Eddie Izzard voices a sword-fighting mouse.
Much has been written over the years about the Christian symbolism in the Narnia books, and I can sort of see that here - the kingdom of Narnia is endangered by the apparent loss of its lion/god - what sort of god remains absent and watches from afar, as people fight and struggle and suffer?
RATING: 8 out of 10 centaurs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
